The Violence Against Women Act is an act that was first
brought about in 1994 in the effort to provide victims (women) of domestic
violent crimes support in the form of shelters and legal aid. Of course, this
act has been revised 3 official times with many other proposed bills to change
it. The current issue amongst Republicans is that the Democrats want the bill to
give federal funding to victims and also temporary visas to immigrants that are
victims of violent crimes. There is also a new bill towards this act that gives
Native American tribal leaders more power to prosecute non-Indian residents who
cause violent crimes to their spouses or girlfriends.
Ms. Sepassi’s editorial blog on this subject called “Women:
Republican vs Democrat”, shows that she is in favor of this act and she thinks
that the Republicans being against this act means that Republicans are against
women. Although I can see her train of thought, I do disagree. After
researching this act, I found that the reason why the Republicans are against
the new amendments to the act is because they are against giving federal
funding towards protecting same sex couples and they are also against giving
visas to immigrants just because they are in a violent relationship. The new bill uses too much money (in the tune
of $682 million) and Republicans want to revise that and hold back the bill to
lower the amount of federal funding.
Democrats have turned this around on the Republicans to make
it look like they are creating a “war on women”, which is not true. They are
concerned about the spending and (being Republicans) they are against the
support of same sex couples, which I do not feel is right. But I do agree with
Republicans on the issue of spending and giving out visas. I do not think that
immigrants should get visas just because they help law enforcement in a
domestic violence case. To me, that’s not a reason. I do not feel that America
should be the world’s police. Senator
Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) addressed the issue of Democrats using this bill as a
political ploy to make Republicans look bad and I believe this quote from him
sums up the real agenda of Democrats when it comes to this issue.
“All these things add up to things that are keeping a bill
that could pass on a voice vote from being passed,” Grassley said. “Violence
against women except for these additions is noncontroversial. I’m afraid what
they’re doing here is they want a political issue — you know, ‘war on women’ —
and they are going to end up with another one-year extension.”
My personal views on this act are not what the normal woman
would probably think. I know that with an issue like domestic violence it is
easy to just say “Let’s fix it!” But it isn’t that easy. I think that
whitehouse.gov saying that this act will fulfill the promise of ending domestic
violence towards women is entirely unrealistic. That’s like saying they promise
to end murders and poverty. It won’t happen. We are human, animals, and
unfortunately bad things will happen. I do support shelters and clinics for
violence victims, but I think that this act should be more focused on
prevention or empowering women to protect themselves against the violence.
Whether that is though self-defense classes or even in relationship counseling
classes to know how to leave an abusive relationship or how to not be involved
in one to begin with. I also do not think that this act should just cover
women. Although it is highly less likely, there are men who are abused by
women. Where do they go? They have no coverage lawfully and are left alone
because they are men and being abused is not “the manly” thing to do. Expanding
the coverage of this act for every legal citizen will also include domestic
violence amongst same sex couples. I feel that this act only focuses on women
because they are the most likely to be victims, but I do not think that is
fair. Anyone who is a victim should feel secure enough in our government to
know that they are protected from their abusers. But to have such a limited act
that costs so much is ignorant to me. And why not have an act that actually
helps people before they are victims? Why do we have to wait until they are
already hurt? Doesn’t make sense to me.
My sources are:
Ms. Sepassi's blog can be found at:
No comments:
Post a Comment